IO: Cardano Upgrades
245 DReps voted · 79 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 20.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 19.9M ₳ Rationale
We absolutely need a multi-asset treasury!
As a cryptocurrency user on Cardano, I want account addresses to support direct deposits, micro-fee collection, and the Cardano Treasury to hold multiple asset types so that I can enable L2 reserves, build cheaper DeFi products and permit Treasury reserves to be held in stable currencies with resilience to ADA price volatility.
Let's get this done!
- Yes 17.1M ₳ Rationale
IO: Cardano Upgrades
- No 16.7M ₳ Rationale
I’m voting NO because a request of this size for core, roadmap-adjacent protocol/economic-layer work is not presented with an auditable cost model or strong enough delivery evidence standards to justify treasury deployment. The proposal is directionally meaningful, but it relies largely on category budgeting rather than the level of transparency expected for multi-million-ADA public funding: explicit named delivery team composition, FTE counts and rates by workstream, and artifact-driven milestone acceptance criteria (what will be published at each gate, how it will be tested/verified, and what constitutes completion). This matters because the workstreams sit at the economic core of the platform. Mistakes or partial delivery create ecosystem-wide costs and without clear cost traceability and acceptance evidence, governance can’t benchmark value-for-money, which is an important factor with treasury-funded initiatives. More importantly, as a governance principle, core roadmap deliverables from founding entities were expected to be covered primarily by their own long-standing resources (including genesis allocation), and the treasury should not become the default completion fund for these categories unless the proposal is structured with exceptional clarity and procurement discipline. Finally, we are giving a process penalty for bypassing the Intersect Budget Process, which was specifically designed to address the gap in the process between proposers and Dreps. Bypassing the Intersect budget mechanism undermines comparability and price discovery for a major protocol spend, and founding entities should set the example by using the improved process rather than routing around it.
- No 16.4M ₳ Rationale
IO has been funded by a significant amount of premine tokens.
- Yes 14.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 13.3M ₳ Rationale
We support this proposal because it addresses several meaningful friction points that continue to limit Cardano’s usability, adoption, and long-term competitiveness. While we retain important reservations around governance quality, cost transparency, and proposal structure, we believe the expected ecosystem value and strategic importance of these upgrades justify support at this time.
This proposal combines three major workstreams: CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, Multi-Asset Treasury design work (CPS-23), and Native Babel Fees. Collectively, these initiatives aim to improve wallet economics, reduce onboarding friction, enable more sustainable Treasury capabilities, and strengthen Cardano’s broader application and DeFi ecosystem. Importantly, these are not purely speculative concepts. They target genuine limitations experienced today by developers, wallets, users, and infrastructure providers.
The strongest case for support lies in the practical ecosystem improvements this proposal could unlock.
CIP-159 has the potential to materially improve Cardano’s usability and application design flexibility. By enabling more flexible account address functionality and micro-fee collection, it addresses longstanding limitations affecting wallet monetisation, batchers, aggregators, and Layer 2 reserve management. Lowering these friction points could improve both user experience and economic sustainability for ecosystem participants.
Similarly, Native Babel Fees addresses one of Cardano’s most persistent onboarding barriers: the requirement to first acquire ADA before transacting. Enabling users to pay fees using native assets has the potential to improve accessibility for stablecoin users, bridged asset holders, and first-time participants entering Cardano’s ecosystem. In an increasingly competitive multi-chain environment, reducing avoidable friction matters.
We also recognise the longer-term strategic importance of beginning design work around a Multi-Asset Treasury. While RCADA does not view future Treasury diversification as automatically desirable or inevitable, we acknowledge that stable-value budgeting, diversified treasury management, and reduced exposure to ADA volatility warrant serious exploration. Supporting research and specification work is not the same as pre-approving future implementation. Any eventual proposal to alter Treasury asset composition should still be subject to rigorous constitutional, governance, and risk scrutiny.
We also acknowledge that this proposal demonstrates stronger governance maturity than many earlier Treasury requests. Milestone-based disbursement, refund provisions for unused funds, third-party assurance, Intersect-administered smart contracts, and public auditability mechanisms all represent positive steps toward more accountable Treasury governance.
However, our YES vote should not be interpreted as unconditional endorsement.
RCADA continues to hold concerns around proposal bundling. Although the three workstreams are more strategically connected than many prior omnibus-style Treasury proposals, we still believe modular funding requests generally improve governance quality by allowing DReps to assess initiatives on their own merits. In this case, we believe the shared strategic direction and technical interdependence justify flexibility, but this should not become the default standard for future Treasury asks.
We also believe cost transparency remains insufficiently detailed for a Treasury request of this size. While high-level budget categories are provided, clearer breakdowns of staffing assumptions, engineering effort, resource allocation, and milestone-level cost attribution would materially improve confidence and accountability. As Treasury governance matures, RCADA expects increasingly robust financial transparency from proposals requesting significant public funding.
Additionally, the proposal’s timelines and delivery assumptions deserve careful monitoring. Cardano has historically prioritised high-assurance engineering, which has often resulted in slower delivery cycles than anticipated. While RCADA recognises the complexity of protocol development and does not wish to penalise engineering rigor, we believe the ecosystem must increasingly demonstrate an ability to execute and deliver measurable outcomes within reasonable expectations.
We also encourage particular caution around the initial Babel Fee implementation model, which currently envisions a limited provider structure during its MVP phase. While we understand the pragmatic reasons for phased delivery, RCADA strongly believes any fee abstraction system should evolve toward a competitive, decentralised, and permissionless model as quickly as practical to avoid unnecessary centralisation risks.
Ultimately, RCADA believes governance should not become so rigid that it prevents meaningful progress. Cardano’s Treasury exists to fund ecosystem advancement, and the proposals that deserve support are those capable of delivering real utility while remaining accountable to the community. Despite our reservations, we believe this proposal meets that threshold.
For these reasons, RCADA votes YES, while encouraging stronger Treasury accountability, clearer cost transparency, and measurable delivery expectations as Cardano governance continues to mature.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/".
- Yes 12.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action 73e171a4c0730b4b59ecae271ab89f12a9d56360b02920e1f95107dbdc1d6762#1.
While I would normally penalize this proposal for being an omnibus proposal, the three initiatives are synergistic, and bundling them reduces risk and saves on costs.
Overall, the three workstreams provide intense value:
- Account Address Enhancement allows for richer, more flexible dApp designs that address deep usability concerns within Cardano. Beyond just the stated use case, dApp developers will likely find many creative use cases for this upgrade.
- Enabling a multi-asset treasury would also unlock more flexible and sustainable asset management models for dReps. I will add that I expect this to include not just the ability for the treasury to hold these funds, but extensions to enable smart contracts controlled by DReps. My vote is contingent on that clarification.
- Native babel fees support, built on top of the DMQ and Nested Transactions work being delivered under last years budget, is a natural extension. While many user-land solutions have been built, the reason they've seen no adoption is because without tight integration into all aspects of the node and downstream tooling, the adoption curve becomes too difficult to surmount. Similarly, ledger integration is neccesary to keep the platform neutral, rather than a solution built by (and thus paying fees to) any one particular third party.
I think IO is currently in the best position to deliver this, in conjunction with the third parties mentioned in the proposal, given their history of node development. That being said, the timelines for delivery on past projects has left something to be desired. As a software engineer myself, I'm the first one to give timeline slippages the benefit of the doubt, but I believe IO and the larger Cardano community have built up a culture of decision paralysis, rather than a culture of delivery. I hope to see this improve, and my evaluation of IO's proposals next year will be benchmarked around how successful they've been in overcoming these long timelines. We've invested heavily in high assurance engineering, it's time for that to start paying dividends.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Yes 12.2M ₳ Rationale
We view this proposal as a strategically important investment into Cardano’s long-term infrastructure, usability, and economic sustainability. While the proposal is technically ambitious and carries execution risk, we believe it is strongly aligned with the Cardano 2030 vision and addresses several foundational limitations currently affecting ecosystem growth and user adoption.
This proposal stands out because it focuses on enabling infrastructure rather than isolated applications or short-term ecosystem initiatives. The three workstreams: CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, Multi-Asset Treasury design, and Babel Fees; collectively target areas that are increasingly important for Cardano’s competitiveness and maturity. These include reducing onboarding friction, improving treasury resilience, enabling sustainable wallet and DeFi economics, and preparing the ecosystem for broader cross-chain participation and Layer 2 expansion.
We believe CIP-159 is one of the most strategically significant components of the proposal. The current limitations around minUTxO requirements, batching costs, and account-like functionality continue to constrain wallet monetization models, increase DeFi operational costs, and complicate reserve management for emerging Layer 2 architectures. The proposed enhancements have the potential to improve transaction efficiency, unlock micro-fee models, and provide infrastructure primitives needed for future scalability and application design. These are meaningful improvements to Cardano’s core utility and developer ecosystem.
We also support the direction of the Multi-Asset Treasury initiative. As Cardano governance matures, treasury sustainability and financial stewardship is becoming increasingly important. Allowing the Treasury to eventually hold stable-value assets and other native assets could improve budget predictability, reduce exposure to ADA volatility, and expand the financial tools available to the ecosystem. While we recognize that this area will require careful governance deliberation and broad community participation, we believe beginning the design and specification work now is appropriate and aligned with the Cardano 2030 vision.
Babel Fees is another important step toward improving user experience and onboarding. Requiring users to acquire ADA before they can interact with the network remains a friction point for Bitcoin users, stablecoin users, and first-time participants entering Cardano DeFi. Fee abstraction is becoming increasingly common across the industry, and we believe Cardano should continue evolving in this direction. Enabling users to transact using assets they already hold could significantly improve accessibility and onboarding conversion over time.
At the same time, our yes vote is not without reservations. We recognize that CIP-159 introduces nontrivial ledger-level complexity and that several workstreams depend on external prerequisites such as CIP-118 and CIP-165. We also note that some adoption projections and market assumptions appear optimistic, and that the initial Babel Fees MVP includes a partially centralized provider model. We expect ongoing transparency from the IO regarding implementation progress, dependency management, measurable outcomes, and decentralization pathways as the work evolves.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 10.5M ₳ Rationale
This is already over the threshold. My vote doesn't effect the outcome.
- No 9.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
私は、この提案に賛成します。本提案は、Cardanoの経済モデル、Treasury運用、そしてユーザー体験を中長期的に強化する重要なアップグレードを含んでいると考えます。特に、TreasuryがADA以外のネイティブアセットやステーブルコインを保有可能となる方向性は、価格変動リスクへの耐性向上や、より安定した予算運営につながる可能性があります。また、Babel Fees により、ユーザーがADAを事前に取得せず取引可能となる点は、新規ユーザー参入障壁を下げる重要な改善だと評価しています。さらに、SPOに新たな収益機会が生まれる可能性もあり、持続可能性向上にも寄与すると考えます。技術的複雑性や実装リスクは存在するものの、Cardanoの将来的な競争力や拡張性を考えるうえで重要な提案だと考え、賛成します。\n\nI support this proposal. I believe it includes important upgrades that can strengthen Cardano’s economic model, Treasury operations, and user experience over the mid to long term. In particular, enabling the Treasury to hold native assets and stablecoins beyond ADA could improve resilience against price volatility and contribute to more stable budget management. I also view Babel Fees as an important improvement that lowers the barrier for new users by allowing transactions without acquiring ADA in advance. In addition, the proposal may create new revenue opportunities for SPOs, contributing to greater sustainability. While there are technical complexities and implementation risks, I believe this proposal is important for Cardano’s future competitiveness and scalability, and therefore support it.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
YES
I am voting YES on this proposal. It targets real Cardano usability issues: better wallet and DeFi fee models, a more resilient treasury design, and the ability for users to transact without first acquiring ADA.
CIP-159 can unlock micro-fees and better account-address functionality. Babel Fees on protocol level can remove a major onboarding friction for users coming with stablecoins or bridged BTC.
I had concerns about whether the Babel fees proposal did not look at previous implementations by FluidTokens or MLabs, the IO team responded the reviewed other implementation designs that were based on smart contract approaches [https://x.com/MichaelSmoIO/status/2050187840005275830?s=20 ] and opted for a new ledger primitive . I was worried about the Babel Fees MVP being too tied to one provider or wallet, but the team clarified [https://x.com/MichaelSmoIO/status/2050244374034825636?s=20] that it will include an open-source reference implementation and aims to become wallet-neutral and provider-neutral over time. I would still like that reflected clearly in the milestones, but overall this is a practical upgrade package worth funding.
- Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes.
This proposal covers protocol and network upgrades that are necessary for Cardano’s continued operation and evolution. These are not optional in nature and are required to keep the chain current and functional.
That said, I want to be clear: this category of work should not become a recurring, open-ended funding cycle. Many of these upgrades have been part of ongoing roadmap efforts, and I would expect delivery within the scope of current funding. We should not see repeated asks for the same class of work without clear evidence of completion and impact.
Support here comes with the expectation of execution. Future proposals in this category should be evaluated based on what is actually delivered from this funding, not on continued promises.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Voting YES. Three platform-level enhancements that compound: CIP-159 unlocks micro-fee revenue for wallets and cheaper DeFi batchers, CPS-23 begins the design work for a multi-asset Treasury that would insulate future budgets from ADA price volatility, and Babel Fees removes the ADA-acquisition barrier for users entering Cardano from Bitcoin or stablecoins. The three workstreams are technically independent but additive in value - each delivers standalone, and together they reshape Cardano's economic surface area. The Multi-Asset Treasury workstream is particularly worth supporting given the fiscal discipline conversations across this entire 2026 batch; denominating future Treasury Withdrawals in stablecoins would directly address the ADA-volatility critique that has shaped community sentiment this cycle.
The proposal soundness is unusually strong. Honest TAM/SAM/SOM market sizing for Babel Fees ($1-2B addressable, narrowing to $2-7M obtainable) rather than headline-only numbers. MVP scope explicitly bounded - one Babel Fee provider, closed network layer at MVP, with extensibility designed in for subsequent decentralisation. Five named risks with likelihood and severity, including the dependency on CIP-118 hard fork completion (medium likelihood, high severity). Same gold-standard treasury safeguards as the rest of the IO 2026 batch. Babel Fees additionally serves the Oceania mandate to blend traditional finance with decentralised finance: removing the requirement to hold ADA before transacting is the single biggest onboarding fix for institutional and mainstream users entering Cardano from Bitcoin or stablecoin rails.
Peter Horsfall - Independent DRep, Oceania.
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES on IO: Cardano Upgrades.
This proposal addresses concrete adoption friction rather than abstract research. Improving fee flexibility, treasury asset capabilities, and transaction usability can make Cardano easier to use for stablecoins, BTC-related use cases, wallets, and enterprise applications.
Some outputs depend on broader protocol work, so this should not be presented as an immediate UX fix. But the direction is commercially relevant and strategically sound. We support this proposal as a practical step toward making Cardano more usable and competitive. - Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "IO: Cardano Upgrades" (gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qz6es0cp), pois ela reúne três melhorias estruturais para a Cardano — CIP-159, Tesouro Multiativos e Babel Fees — com potencial para reduzir atritos de uso, melhorar a experiência de novos usuários, ampliar modelos econômicos e fortalecer a sustentabilidade do ecossistema. Embora o valor solicitado, de ₳13.103.039, seja significativo, entendemos que o custo-benefício é justificável diante do escopo técnico e do impacto esperado em adoção, TVL, volume de transações e resiliência do Tesouro. Também consideramos positivo que a proposta apresente entregáveis distribuídos por workstream e trimestre, permitindo acompanhar a evolução das entregas, ainda que parte dos critérios de aceite dependa do contrato final. Além disso, os mecanismos de controle e transparência — gestão via Intersect, pagamentos por marcos, validação por terceiro independente, metadados públicos, dashboard de acompanhamento, smart contracts auditados e devolução de recursos não utilizados ao Tesouro — oferecem maior segurança para apoiar a execução.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "IO: Cardano Upgrades" (gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qz6es0cp), because it brings together three structural improvements for Cardano — CIP-159, Multi-Asset Treasury, and Babel Fees — with the potential to reduce user friction, improve the experience for new users, expand economic models, and strengthen the ecosystem’s sustainability. Although the requested amount of ₳13,103,039 is significant, we believe the cost-benefit ratio is justified by the technical scope and the expected impact on adoption, TVL, transaction volume, and Treasury resilience. We also view positively that the proposal presents deliverables distributed by workstream and quarter, allowing the progress of deliveries to be tracked, even though some acceptance criteria will depend on the final contract. In addition, the control and transparency mechanisms — management through Intersect, milestone-based payments, validation by an independent third party, public metadata, tracking dashboard, audited smart contracts, and the return of unused funds to the Treasury — provide greater assurance in supporting its execution. - Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
Prioritizing core development and strategic marketing is key to Cardano’s long-term success—build strong technology, drive adoption, and the price will follow.
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
I believe this proposal is worth doing, but have significant reservations about the procurement process which is not suited for managing this type of project.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The work proposed here is legitimate public infrastructure and aligned with Cardano’s medium-term roadmap needs. Features such as micro-transactions, Babel fees, and improved multi-currency fee capabilities are strategically important if Cardano wants to improve onboarding, usability, and support broader real-world application models. These are not speculative ecosystem experiments; they are core platform capabilities that strengthen the protocol itself.
I also believe the timing is appropriate. Several of these capabilities have moved from “future enhancements” into increasingly necessary infrastructure if Cardano is going to remain competitive from both a developer and user experience perspective.
My support is not without reservations.
The proposal should not have been bundled at this level. Bundling reduces governance precision and makes it difficult for DReps to independently evaluate cost, priority, and value across different workstreams. Some of these upgrades may have differing urgency, complexity, and ROI profiles, but governance is forced into accepting or rejecting the package as a whole.
I also remain concerned about the lack of financial clarity relative to the size of the request. For a ₳13.1M treasury proposal, I would have preferred significantly more granular breakdowns around staffing, engineering allocation, milestones, and cost assumptions. Treasury governance needs to mature beyond approving large opaque infrastructure packages based primarily on institutional trust.
More broadly, I believe work of this nature should eventually move toward a more formal RFP and competitive implementation model wherever realistically possible. That said, I recognize that some protocol-level engineering work is still difficult to fully commoditize given IO’s current concentration of historical and technical knowledge. I do give positive weight to the fact that much of this proposal appears driven by ecosystem CIPs rather than purely vendor-originated initiatives.
Overall, despite governance and procurement concerns, I believe the underlying work is strategically important, treasury appropriate, and directionally beneficial for the ecosystem, which leads me to support the proposal.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
The three proposed workstreams, as detailed and analyzed in this proposal, appear essential for multiple critical components of the Cardano ecosystem. It is clear to me that we need all three, as the strong justifications explained.
==========================================
In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos, and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano. - Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I'm happy to vote YES for this proposal. All three workstreams are necessary functionality improvements for Cardano to continue to compete in the Blockchain ecosystem.
I do express concern that Babel fees are designed with only support for Lace Wallet in mind with this funding. Lace is a proprietary IOG wallet, and they will reap all the benefits of inital Babel fees until other providers are established. The decentralization of this technology and future on chain income will be subject to future funding of other providers (possibly at treasury cost), and I am not happy to see this designed without fully open sourced tooling in mind. I would expect this for delivery on treasury funding, and it is the one thing I would change with this proposal:
Lace Wallet Integration and Product Delivery: Lace wallet updated to support Babel Fee payments. Production-ready software supporting Babel Fee service for two major native assets. MVP: one Babel Fee provider; the network layer is not required to be open and permissionless at this stage, however, the architecture will be designed with extensibility as a core principle, ensuring it can be further designed to support multiple providers and wallets in a decentralised, permissionless network in subsequent iterations.
Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.
If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.
I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.
I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Cant stop wont stop
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
この提案は、Cardanoをより使いやすく、持続可能な金融基盤へ進化させる重要なアップグレードである。CIP-159はウォレット収益化、DeFiの低コスト化、L2準備金管理の基盤となり、Babel FeesはADAを保有しない新規ユーザーやBTC・ステーブルコイン利用者の参入障壁を大きく下げる。また、Multi-Asset Treasuryは国庫をADA価格変動から保護し、長期的な財政安定性を高める設計として重要である。
一方で、CIP-118（Nested Transactions）やCIP-165（台帳のデータ構造を拡張し、アカウント的な状態管理を可能にする変更）への依存には留意が必要である。加えて、Babel Feesは初期段階では単一プロバイダによる限定的な実装となるが、将来的な分散化を前提とした段階的導入として評価できる。以上より、Cardanoの採用拡大と制度的成熟に直結する提案として、強く賛成する。
This proposal is a critical upgrade to make Cardano more usable and evolve it into a sustainable financial platform. CIP-159 enables wallet revenue models, lowers DeFi costs, and supports L2 reserve management. Babel Fees significantly reduces onboarding friction for new users who do not hold ADA, including BTC and stablecoin users. In addition, the Multi-Asset Treasury is important for protecting the Treasury from ADA price volatility and improving long-term financial stability.
At the same time, attention should be paid to its dependencies on CIP-118 (Nested Transactions) and CIP-165 (ledger structure changes enabling account-like state management). Babel Fees is initially implemented in a limited form with a single provider, but this phased approach toward future decentralization is reasonable.
For these reasons, I strongly support this proposal as it directly contributes to Cardano’s adoption and long-term maturity.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
This proposal is exactly what I expect to see out of IO and solves 3 real problems. I am very happy to see a focus around babel fees. CIP 159 will be a valuable add to the ecosystem. Multi asset treasury!
The KPI goals are extremely aligned with ecosystem growth as well the 2030 vision. These would be extremely meaningful if met.
One of my main concerns with blockchain at large is start-ups, and companies in general, not picking a lane and staying in it. Commonly teams work too many routes (guilty myself) instead of focusing on one core problem to fix. This proposal shows focus on relevant ecosystem issues and, to me, IOs major value add to Cardano. This narrowed focus is critical from the ecosystem as we progress forward. We commonly have too many people working on the same issue, causing fragmented progress. I want to see IO commit to Cardano Upgrades/Maintenance, and be laser focused on it.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale